The present invention relates to a dispenser for dispensing a product.
In particular, it relates to a dispenser of the kind having a base unit containing a dispensing mechanism and a refill which is removably insertable into the base. In some embodiments, a refill takes the form of a product container such as a coffee brewing cup.
Such dispensers can be used, for example, for dispensing fluids. These may be liquid soaps and the like, or may be used to dispense fluid food stuff such as coffee or sauces with a mustard or ketchup-like consistency. They may also be aerosol type dispensers for dispensing air freshener and the like, or dispensers for solid objects such as tabs, lozenges or wipes.
With such dispensers, there is a general desire to authenticate the refill which is placed in the dispenser in order to maintain quality control, and for safety reasons, to prevent dispensing a sub-standard or hazardous product.
Systems and methods have been employed to prevent or reduce counterfeiting, infringement and the parallel importing of objects and products carrying a valuable piece of intellectual property, such as a company name, logo, image, brand, copyright or trademark.
Most systems and methods contain one or more protection features in the form of security or authentication measures classified into three types of object or product authenticity protection, each offering a different level of security. These are referred to in the security industry as a “Level 1” (readable by an ordinary citizen), Level 2″ (machine-readable with immediate response) and “Level 3” (machine readable with dedicated tools where the response is not readily obtainable in real time, or other forensic means) security measures.
A Level 1 security measure involves the use of features that can be recognized overtly, e.g. by sight or touch by an end user of the object or product. Such features include holograms and markings by optically variable ink. In the case of a hologram, one is looking for a specially designed holographic pattern and in the case of an optically variable ink, the marked pattern shows different colors when viewed at different angles.
A Level 2 security measure involves the use of covert or semi-covert features that require interrogation by a simple and easily obtainable detection device. Examples include printed sectors in banknotes bearing fluorescent marks made from inks containing downconverter and upconverter taggants. In this case, one only needs an ultraviolet or infra-red laser interrogation source for verification of an object or product having the ink applied. When light in an appropriate waveband is illuminated onto the ink containing taggant, due to the taggant, the ink will emit visible light, which can be observed readily by the naked-eye. Alternatively, the ink may, due to the taggant, emit radiation of a wavelength invisible to the naked-eye, but readable and verifiable by a suitable reader.
Finally, a Level 3 security measure involves the use features that are generally known only to the brand or currency manufacturer of an object or product and can be verified, usually not in real time, by dedicated interrogation tools that cannot be readily obtained commercially in the marketplace.
US 2010/0149531 is directed to a Level 2 authentication measure and describes an authentication method for an object or product containing an image, where the image contains or forms part of a taggant used in a coded readable security feature. The coded readable feature is subject to an authentication process that identifies and verifies the object or product. However, because the taggant represents the only source of the identification and authentication security feature, and given that the machine readable security feature of the image is coded, it therefore does not contain or form part of an intellectual property protected feature. As a result, a counterfeiter would find it relatively easy to introduce counterfeit or infringing objects or products containing or using the coded image into the commercial stream where such objects and products are marketed and sold. For example, a counterfeiter could evaluate and ultimately determine how to identify, source and formulate the taggant, reproduce the coded security feature of the image and apply it to a copied or counterfeit object or product, then introduce such object or product into the commercial stream.
Alternatively, a counterfeiter could evaluate and ultimately determine how to decode and reprogram the authenticating reader used to read the existing coded security feature of the image containing or forming part of the taggant so that it reads the counterfeiter's coded image. By adopting either or both of these approaches, a counterfeiter could successfully circumvent the authentication process or measures being used by the owner or marketer of the object or product without having infringed any intellectual property right of the owner or marketer in the object or product.
U.S. Pat. No. 8,403,223 is also directed to a Level 2 security measure and describes an authentication method for textiles containing two invisible designs having readable features and used to identify, authenticate and track textiles. However, again given that the invisible designs themselves are not, nor do they contain any, intellectual property protected features, the invisible designs serve as the only security feature for identifying and authenticating the textiles. As a result, a counterfeiter would again, find it relatively easy to introduce counterfeit, copied textiles into the commercial stream without having infringed any intellectual property right of the owner or marketer in the textiles.
As for one way of authenticating refills, such as dispenser product containers, is to use a magnet on the refill which is brought into proximity with a reed switch on the base in order to complete a circuit. This is disclosed in EP 1824760. This idea provides a simple and cost-effective authentication system. However, it is easy for a non-authorised refill to be produced simply by providing a magnet at the correct location. Further, the system lacks versatility as the base can only ever detect one type of refill. It cannot be configured to detect different refills in different products.
A further known method of authentication is disclosed in EP 1 671 568 and uses an electronic key, such as an RFID tag. Such tags can be programmed with a unique identifier. The base is then provided with control circuitry which reads the RFID tag and, if it detects that the tag with an authorised code is present, it will allow the dispensing mechanism to operate to dispense liquid. If no such tag is identified, it will prevent operation of the dispensing mechanism. Although such systems are commonly used, they are relatively expensive in that they require each refill to be provided with an RFID tag. In a low-cost system, where every penny which can be shaved off the cost of the refill is critical, this expense can be significant.
Also known in the art are optical systems, such as that disclosed in WO 1996/036556. This is based on bar-code technology and uses a scanning light which scans the barcode to check that the container is authentic, and to obtain information about the nature of the product in the refill which has a bearing on the subsequent operation of the dispenser.
Such devices have a number of drawbacks. The requirement for a bar-code on the refill means that a relatively large area of the product must be taken up with the bar-code which detracts from the appearance of the refill. Also, the physical size of the bar-code, together with the space required for the scanner which detects the bar-code means that the space required for such a system is relatively large. Also, the fact that a bar-code is readily visible in normal use means that it can readily be copied onto an unauthorised product.
Given the size and complexity of such a system, this has generally only been used in relatively large-scale mains-powered machines such as beverage dispensers. As far as we are aware, this has not been used on a smaller scale dispenser, for example, one which is capable of being battery-powered.
WO 2009/086120 discloses a sensor for dispensing sheets of material. It has an authentication reader which reads a mark on the roll as it is dispensed from the dispenser. If it fails to recognise an authentication mark, it determines 30 that the refill is unauthorised and dispenses it at a faster rate. The idea is to deter the use of unauthorised product by ensuring that this is used up at a faster rate. This document discloses a non-exhaustive list of suitable sensors which include barcodes, RFID tags, fluorescent or phosphorescence inks, conductive particles, fibers, metals, tick marks or ridges. Similarly, JP 2004/237489 discloses a roll of thermal paper that is provided with an ink based authentication mark which may be fluorescent or luminescent. In both cases, the dispensers require the roll of material to be moved past the sensor in order to allow the sensor to read the authentication mark. As such, the mark must be continuous or repeat frequently along the length of the material. Both devices are relatively large scale mains powered devices that again require some relative movement in order to function.
Embodiments described herein aim to provide a cost-effective authentication system suitable for use with relatively small-scale, low-cost dispensers.